Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
26. in the book of Moses ] They had brought forward the name of Moses to perplex Him, He now appeals to the same great name in order to confute them. He does not reprove them for attaching a higher importance to the Pentateuch than to the Prophets, but for not tracing the Divine Mind on the important subject of the Resurrection even there.
in the bush ] i. e. in the section of the Book of Exodus (Mar 3:6) called “ the Bush.” Similarly “ the lament of David aver Saul and Jonathan ” in 2Sa 1:17-27 was called “ the Bow; ” and Eze 1:15-28 “ the Chariot.” Compare also Rom 11:2; “in Elias” = the section concerning Elias. In the Koran the chapters are named after the matter they contain, and so also the Homeric poems. Wyclif alone of our English translators gives the right meaning, “Han ye not rad in the book of Moyses on the bousche, how God seide to him.”
God spake unto him, saying ] On that momentous occasion, which marked an epoch in the national history, God had revealed Himself to Moses as a personal God, by the august and touching title of “ the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, ” and therefore as bearing a personal relation to these patriarchs, upon whom He had set His seal of Circumcision, and so admitted them into covenant union with Himself. How unworthy would such a title be, if He, the Eternal and Unchangeable, had revealed Himself only as the God of men who had long since crumbled to dust and passed away into annihilation! How meaningless such a Name, if the souls of men at death perished with the body, “as the cloud faileth and passeth away”! Was it possible to believe He would have deigned to call Himself the God “of dust and ashes”?
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
26. And as touching the dead, thatthey rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses“evenMoses” (Lu 20:37), whomthey had just quoted for the purpose of entangling Him.
how in the bush God spakeunto himeither “at the bush,” as the same expressionis rendered in Lu 20:37, thatis, when he was there; or “in the [section of his historyregarding the] bush.” The structure of our verse suggests thelatter sense, which is not unusual.
saying, I am the God ofAbraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? (Ex3:6).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And as touching the dead, that they rise,…. For the proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,
have ye not read in the book of Moses; that is, in the law of Moses; for though it was divided into five parts, it was but one book; just as the Psalms are called the Book of Psalms, Ac 1:20, and the Prophets, the Book of the Prophets, Ac 7:42. The book of Exodus is particularly intended; for the passage referred to is in Ex 3:6,
how in the bush God spake unto him, or “out of the bush”, as the Syriac and Persic versions read;
saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? [See comments on Mt 22:31],
[See comments on Mt 22:32].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In the place concerning the Bush ( ). This technical use of is good Greek, in the matter of, in the passage about, the Bush. is masculine here, feminine in Lu 20:37. The reference is to Ex 3:3-6 (in the book of Moses, ).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
How in the bush God spake. An utterly wrong rendering. In the bush [ ] , refers to a particular section in the Pentateuch, Exo 3:2 – 6. The Jews were accustomed to designate portions of scripture by the most noteworthy thing contained in them. Therefore Rev., rightly, in the place concerning the bush. Wyc., in the book of Moses on the bush. The article refers to it as something familiar. Compare Rom 11:2, ejn jHlia; i e., in the section of scripture which tells of Elijah. There, however, the Rev. retains the A. V. of Elijah, and puts in in the margin.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And as touching the dead, that they rise:- (peri de ton nekron hoti egeirontai) “Then (also) concerning the dead, that the dead bodies (of men) are raised up,” Mat 22:31; Dan 12:2. Future relations in the new bodies are left to God – – that all shall rise is the main truth of the Scriptures, Joh 5:28-29.
2) “Have ye not read in the book of Moses,” (ouk anegnote en te biblion Mouseos) “Did you all not read in the roll (of the Law) of Moses,” can’t you even recall what Moses wrote, in the very Pentateuch, which you claim to believe, can you be ignorant of it, or not even believe it at all?
3) “How in the bush God spake unto Him,” (epi) “How God said to him at the bush,” when He spoke to him out of the burning bush, when He spoke, Exo 3:1-6. Long dead to the world the following yet lived with God:
4) “Saying, I am ” (legon ego) “Saying, I am,” or exist as:
a) “The God of Abraham,” (ho theos Abraam) “The (one) God of Abrahari),” the “elohim” one trinitarian powerful God.
b) “And the God of Isaac,” (kai theos Isaak) “And of Isaac,” I am, exist as, the one God.
c) “And the God of Jacob?” (kai theos lakob) “And (I am, exist as) the one God of Jacob?” Do you all not recall this reading as learned Sadducees? Mat 22:32.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(26) How in the bush God spake unto him.Better, at the bush, how God spake to him. The reference to the bush, not given by St. Matthew, is common both to St. Mark and St. Luke, and the order of the words in the Greek of both shows that they point to the bush, not as the place in which God spoke, but as the title or heading by which the section Exodus 3 was commonly described.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. In the bush See Exo 3:6. THE CANDID SCRIBE, Mar 12:28-34.
(See notes on Mat 22:34-40.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“But as touching the dead that they are raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the place headed The Bush, how God spoke to him saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You do greatly err.”
Having dealt briefly with the nature of the resurrection life Jesus then dealt with the matter at the heart of the controversy, the resurrection as indicated in the book of Moses.
The essence of His argument was that God, as ‘the living God’, is such that He could not be described as someone’s God in the present if they were not still in some way still alive. He was known in Moses’ day as ‘the God of Abraham’. But unless Abraham still existed at that time such a title would be meaningless. He would be being presented as a God of the dead, a God of nothingness. What kind of encouragement would it be to say, ‘I am the God of a shade’. So the very use of the title indicated that Abraham was still in some way active and alive. The same applied to Isaac and Jacob. It probably, however, goes further than this. It was not only a rational argument but an argument directed at the heart. They knew that God is the living God. They boasted in the fact. Then let them ask themselves how such a God could describe Himself in terms of death and nothingness. It would be impossible. As the living God He could only describe Himself in terms of what lived.
Nor could a God of the dead have meant much to Moses. He very much needed a God of the living, a God of the present not of the past, the One Who could say ‘I am what I am’, the eternally present, not ‘I was what I was’. So as His being the ‘I am’ is paralleled with the fact of His being the ‘God of Abraham’ in the present, He is suggesting that Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob) must still exist in some way. Thus they would enjoy the resurrection (for there was no other form of afterlife acceptable to the Jews).
There may also have been the further thought that God is the God of covenant. He was ‘the God of Abraham’ precisely because He had entered into a living covenant with him. Abraham had loved and served Him, and had enjoyed His favour. He had shown His love to Abraham time and again. That was what His being ‘the God of Abraham’ indicated. Did the Sadducees then think that the living God would forget that covenant and that relationship when Abraham died? That He would just ‘drop him’ and overlook him and let him sink into nothingness, while still claiming to be his God? Never! For then He would cease to be the God of Abraham. He would simply be the God of the present generation. He would cease to be the faithful God towards those with whom He was in covenant. And that could not be. So Abraham must still exist in some way.
Jesus’ argument was thus twofold, based on the nature of God. Firstly that He is the living God, bringing and maintaining life where He is, with all with whom He is genuinely in covenant, and secondly that He is the faithful God Who will ever be faithful to those with whom He has entered into relationship. And this to be seen as demonstrated from Scripture by His name, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (with all of whom He made covenants). This was similar to the experience of the psalmist, who had the same instinct. ‘Nevertheless I am continually with You, You have held my right hand, You will guide me with your counsel, and afterwards receive me to glory” (Psa 73:23-24). He too knew that the God Who had been so close to him within the covenant could not desert him in the end.
A third factor which might have appealed to the Sadducees (and the Pharisees) was the use of the tense (assumed), ‘I (am) the God of Abraham —’, thus bringing the relationship into the present and signifying that Abraham existed now. But we must not see Jesus as using semantics to prove His point. Rather He was using the argument of God’s ultimate faithfulness and love towards His own.
‘In the place headed The Bush.’ For convenience in the Synagogue the Law was divided into sections, each of which was given a heading. The heading of this section was The Bush (compare ‘the section headed Abiathar the High Priest’ in Mar 2:26; compare also Rom 11:2 RV margin).
“You do greatly err.’ Jesus considered their rejection of the resurrection to be a great error.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mar 12:26. As touching, &c. As concerning.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
DISCOURSE: 1448
THE RESURRECTION PROVED FROM THE PENTATEUCH
Mar 12:26-27. As touching the dead, that they rise; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
IT is no uncommon thing for persons to conclude a doctrine to be false, because it may be attended with difficulties which they are not able to solve. This is the great source of objection in the minds of infidels, who do not merely ask, How can these things be? but reject at once the plainest declarations of Scripture, because they cannot comprehend every thing relating to them. In this manner the Free-thinkers among the Jews discarded the greater part of the Scriptures, together with the most fundamental articles of their religion. They denied, for instance, the resurrection of the body, and it is supposed, the immortality of the soul also: and having, as they imagined, insurmountable objections to those doctrines, they came to propose them to our Lord, in full confidence that they should confound him, and overthrow the system which he was endeavouring to establish.
Their great objection was taken from the word of God itself, which appointed, that, if a man died childless, his brother should marry his widow, in order to raise up seed unto the departed person, and to prevent his name from being lost in Israel [Note: Deu 25:5-10.]. They, for arguments sake, assumed a case, which certainly was within the sphere of possibility. They stated, that a man with six younger brothers died without children; and that, in compliance with the Divine command, his next brother married her; and he also died childless. In like manner all the brothers in succession married her, and all died without issue. Now, as the Sadducees imagined, that, if there were any future world, the same relationship as existed now must of necessity continue, they could not conceive which of the seven brethren would be acknowledged for her husband.
Our blessed Lord informed them, that they were quite mistaken about the nature of the future state; for that no matrimonial connexions would be formed there; but all would be, like the angels, wholly engrossed with spiritual delights: and, as to their secret thought that the resurrection was a thing impossible, they erred from an ignorance of what the Scripture had said respecting it, and of the power of God to effect it. Our Lord then called to their remembrance the passage of Scripture which we have just read; and which we will now consider,
I.
As establishing the point at issue
The Sadducees acknowledged only the five books of Moses as of divine authority: and therefore our blessed Lord, passing by the many plainer passages which are contained in the prophetic writings, adduced one from the book of Exodus [Note: Exo 3:6; Exo 3:16.], which, obscurely indeed, but certainly, contained the doctrine in question
[God, when he spoke to Moses in the bush, announced himself to him as the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. Now this was two hundred years after the youngest of them was dead: and yet God speaks of the relation to them as still existing. But God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: the very title therefore which God assumed, implied that those persons were yet alive. Nor did it less forcibly imply, that their bodies also should be restored to life: for they, as men, consisted both of body and soul; and God was as much the God of their bodies as of their souls; and therefore if their bodies should never rise again, that relation had ceased with respect to their bodies. If it be said, that death had already terminated that relation; I answer, that their bodies were merely sleeping in the dust till the morning of the resurrection, when they shall awake to everlasting life; and that, as God was no less their God when they were asleep on their beds, than he was during the day, so is he their God now that they are sleeping in their graves, as much as he ever was, or ever will be. In respect of God, with whom all things, past and future, are ever present, and who calleth things that be not, as though they were, they are now alive, seeing that they certainly shall live at the last day [Note: This seems to be the true sense of these words, : Luk 20:38. See Bezas note on the place. Most other commentators seem to mistake their import.].
But the terms here used to designate the Deity, imply, that that these patriarchs had an interest in him, and were partakers of blessings from him. But if their souls were not alive, they inherited no blessing from God; and if their bodies were not to rise, they would only be partially blessed: but they had served God with their bodies as well as with their souls: and therefore their bodies were entitled to a share of that reward which they had looked forward to, and in the prospect of which they had submitted to many hardships and privations: and that God, who had promised to be their exceeding great reward [Note: Gen 15:1.], would not deprive them of their expected benefits.
What weight this argment may have with modern infidels, I know not; but it convinced and confounded all the Sadducees; insomuch that not one of them dared to put any other question to him [Note: Luk 20:39-40.],]
Let us proceed to consider the quotation,
II.
As declaring the believers privileges
All that the passage implied in reference to the patriarchs, it implies in reference to believers in every age. It implies,
1.
That a relation subsists between God and them
[The covenant which God made with Abraham was expressly made also with all his spiritual seed [Note: Gen 17:7-8.]. His natural seed, as such, had no part in them: neither Ishmael nor Esau had any share in this covenant: it was confined, in the first instance, to him who was born after the promise; and afterwards to those who, like him, should be born of the Spirit [Note: Gal 4:22-23; Gal 4:30-31.]. Amongst these, the true believer is numbered, though he should have no relation to Abraham after the flesh. This is asserted by St. Paul in the plainest terms [Note: Gal 3:7-9.], and consequently, every believer stands in the very same relation to God that Abraham himself did. Hear this, all ye who believe in Christ; every one of you may adopt the words of David, and say, O God, thou art my God: and, in saying this, you may claim all Gods perfections to be exercised for you, as much as ever they were exercised for the patriarchs of old.]
2.
That covenant-blessings are provided for them
[In the covenant were conveyed all spiritual and eternal blessings to those with whom it was made [Note: Gen 12:2-3.]: and if we believe in Christ, they all belong to us [Note: Gal 3:13-14.]. In the present life we have a portion infinitely superior to that of the mere worldling: all that he feeds upon is as husks, in comparison of that heavenly manna which the saints partake of; they have angels food, a peace that passeth understanding, a joy unspeakable and glorified. Whilst the Egyptians were involved in darkness, the Israelites had light in their dwellings. But who can conceive what God hath prepared for them in a better world? Were they possessed of no better portion than what they have here, he would be ashamed to call himself their God: but St. Paul says, He is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city [Note: Heb 11:16.]. If then we truly belong to Christ, we may adopt the triumphant language of the Apostle, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ [Note: Eph 1:3.].]
3.
That in the last day these blessings shall be fully and eternally enjoyed
[Whatever we possess in this world, it is only transient. The believers path is not always smooth: he has many trials; and through much tribulation is his way to the kingdom. But in heaven he has arrived at a state of unmixed, uninterrupted happiness. There, his soul is at perfect rest. Here, he groans by reason of sin; there, having awaked up after the perfect likeness of his God, he is satisfied with it [Note: Psa 17:15.]. Here, he has many interruptions to his bliss; there, nothing finds admittance that can for a moment cloud his joy [Note: Rev 21:3-4.]. Here, he is dependent on others for a good measure of his happiness: but there no connexions can augment his bliss, nor can any operate to the diminution of it. In a word, he is equal to the angels: and as the patriarchs are now in the full fruition of that portion, so shall he shortly be, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of his God.]
From this subject we may learn,
1.
To make a practical use of the Holy Scriptures
[We should not readily have conceived that such important truths were contained in the words of God to Moses, if our blessed Lord had not unfolded them to our view. But, in fact, there is in all the words of Scripture a depth which we cannot fathom. Of this we are not sufficiently aware; and therefore we content ourselves with a superficial view of them, without exploring diligently their contents. But our Lord teaches us to reflect on what we read: Have ye not read so and so in the Book of Moses? and ought you not from thence to have learned such and such truths? ought you not to have drawn from it such and such conclusions? We entreat you then, brethren, to mark, learn, and inwardly digest what you read in the Holy Scriptures; and to treasure up the truths contained in them for the instruction, and comfort, and sanctification of your souls.]
2.
To seek an interest in the Lord Jesus Christ
[It is in Christ only that we become partakers of the blessings of Gods covenant: If ye be Christs, says the Apostle, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise [Note: Gal 3:29.]. Till we be united to Christ by faith, we have no part or lot in his salvation. O that all would consider this! O that all would inquire, what evidence they have that they have ever come to Christ aright, and they are really accepted in the beloved! Brethren, flee to this adorable Saviour, and lay hold upon him, and cleave unto him with full purpose of heart; and then you may with confidence call God your Father, and say, This God is our God for ever and ever.]
3.
To look forward with joy to the eternal world
[There will you meet all the glorified saints from Abel to the present hour. Not one of them is lost: God is still their God as much as ever. Dread not death, then, which shall introduce you to their company Nor regret too deeply the loss of pious friends. Think that when you are following their bodies to the grave, their souls are in Abrahams bosom, feasting at the marriage supper of the Lamb in heaven. What kind of knowledge we shall have of each other then, we know not; but it is probable that, as there are no relative connexions, so neither are there relative partialities; but all will be like the angels of God, filled with love and joy to the utmost capacity of their souls. In one respect indeed, the blessedness of the just is not yet complete: because their bodies are not yet raised to a participation of it; but we may look forward to the morning of the resurrection, when all who have fallen asleep in Christ shall awake unto life, and possess both in body and soul the full and everlasting enjoyment of their God. Brethren, Comfort ye one another with these words [Note: 1Th 4:18.]]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Ver. 26. I am the God of Abraham ] Therefore thy God also, if thou walk in the footsteps of faithful Abraham,Rom 4:23-24Rom 4:23-24 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
26. ] (so also ( ) Luke); either, ‘ in the chapter containing the history of God appearing in the bush,’ or, ‘ when he was at the bush.’ The former is the more probable, on account of the construction of the verse in our text. In Luke, if we had his account alone, the other rendering might be admissible, ‘Moses testified, at the bush:’ but this will not answer in our text.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 12:26 . .: a general reference to the Pentateuch, the following phrase, , supplying a more definite reference to the exact place in the book, the section relating to the bush. “At the bush,” i.e. , Exo 3 , similarly reference might be made to Exo 15 , by the title: “at the song of Moses”. is masculine here according to the best reading; feminine in Luk 20:37 . The feminine is Hellenistic, the masculine Attic. Vide Thayer’s Grimm . The word occurs in Aristophanes and in the N. T.; possibly colloquial (Kennedy, Sources of N.T.G. , p. 78).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
And as touching = But concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
the dead = dead bodies, or corpses. With Art. See App-139. Not the same as in Mar 12:27.
in the bush = at (Greek. epi. App-104.) the place concerning the bush: i.e. the passage about it in Exo 3:6. Compare Rom 11:2 “in Elijah”; see note there.
I and, &c. Quoted from Exo 3:2-6, and. Note the Figure of speech Polysyndeton. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
26.] (so also () Luke);-either, in the chapter containing the history of God appearing in the bush, or, when he was at the bush. The former is the more probable, on account of the construction of the verse in our text. In Luke, if we had his account alone, the other rendering might be admissible, Moses testified, at the bush: but this will not answer in our text.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 12:26 , the book) The volume of Moses is mentioned in this passage; that of Isaiah in Luk 3:4; that of the Prophets, Act 7:42; that of the Psalms, Act 1:20.-, of Moses) concerning whom you have spoken, Mar 12:19.- , in the bush) A formula of quoting a section or division of Scripture, frequent with the Rabbins [Comp. Michalis in der Einleitung, etc., T. i. p. m. 87.-E. B.] So Pliny, Molybdnam in plumbo dicendam, i.e. in the chapter concerning lead [plumbus]. Furthermore, is the measure, bath; or (as or ) not an unproductive bramble, but a valuable shrubbery [place of bushes], at least in Exodus. A noble image is derived from this, Deu 33:16 [the good-will of Him, that dwelt in the bush].
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
read in the book
Jesus affirms the historic truth and inspiration of Exodus 3.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
have: Mar 12:10, Mat 22:31, Mat 22:32
in the book: Exo 3:2-6, Exo 3:16, Luk 20:37, Act 7:30-32
I am: Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8, Gen 26:24, Gen 28:13, Gen 31:42, Gen 32:9, Gen 33:20, *marg. Isa 41:8-10
Reciprocal: Exo 3:6 – I am Deu 33:16 – the good Mat 9:13 – go Mat 12:3 – Have Mat 19:4 – Have Mar 2:25 – Have Luk 6:3 – Have Heb 11:16 – to be
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Chapter 14.
The Resurrection
“And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?”-Mar 12:26.
Simple Hearts and Simple Faith.
Our Lord’s reply to the Sadducees asserts that this time, at any rate, the people at large were right, and they, the Sadducees, the clever people, the superior people, the cultured people, were wrong. As a matter of fact, culture is apt to be more than a little critical of religion. The superior person sometimes looks down with a touch of superciliousness and scorn upon the simple faith of the humble and trusting soul. But when it comes to religious truth, I would far rather trust the simple heart than the merely cultivated mind, the instinct of the Christian commonalty than the judgment of the “superior person.” For when it comes to religion, to God and the soul and the eternal life, the intellect is not the sole, or even the chief organ of knowledge. Pectus facit theologium, says the old proverb. “It is the heart that makes the theologian.” The man of loving and open heart knows more, and sees further into spiritual truth than the man only of keen and cultivated mind. How does the Beatitude run, “Blessed are the cultivated in mind?” No. “Blessed are the trained in intellect?” No. But “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” The Jewish people at large believed eagerly, passionately in a resurrection and a life beyond the grave. These Sadducees, the clever, cultured people, scoffed at the belief. But it was the Sadducees, and not the people, who were wrong. It was only another illustration of things being hidden from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto babes.
“Not Knowing the Scriptures.”
-A widespread Error.
We have already dealt with one cause of their mistake. There was another; and it was this-“Is it not for this cause that ye err,” Jesus said to them, “that ye know not the Scriptures?” (Mar 12:24). That was a startling charge to bring against these Sadducees, for no doubt they were well versed in those portions of the Old Testament which they reckoned as Scripture. But it is possible to read the Scriptures without knowing them, it is possible to be letter-perfect in them without understanding them. There is, in literary history, a curious example of reading without understanding. John Milton was one of the best, and most gifted men God ever gave to England. But there is no great man without his foibles, and John Milton had his. Though he had views on education that were far in advance of his time, he did not believe in the education of women. So he would not allow his daughters to learn languages; one tongue, he used to say with a gibe, was enough for a woman. But, when his eyesight failed, it was essential that his daughters should be able to read to him in various languages. So he went to the trouble of teaching them how to pronounce the words, but not what the words meant. Thus they had to read to their father in Latin, Italian and Greek without understanding a single word. But is not there a great deal of Bible-reading of that sort? Men read the words without grasping the truth. “Understandest thou what thou readest?” asked Philip of the Ethiopian eunuch. “How can I,” replied that humble soul, “except some one shall guide me”? (Act 8:31-32). He was reading without understanding. And many beside the Ethiopian were doing the same thing only they had not the humility to confess it. Take that fifty-third chapter of Isaiah which the Eunuch was reading. Had not the whole Jewish nation read it without understanding it? They were familiar with its words; but as far as realising the truth taught by it, the great passage might as well never have been in the Book of the Prophet at all.
How to Understand.
And we do that same thing still. We often read the Scriptures without understanding them, just exactly as we may say our prayers without praying. We have our Scripture-reading leagues; we pledge ourselves to read some portion of this Holy Book every day. So far, so good! But remember, it is possible to have a superficial knowledge of Scripture, and to miss its vital points. You may know its sentences off by heart, and miss its spirit. The letter killeth; it is the Spirit that giveth life. To know your Bible, you want more than ability to read. You want an illumined mind, a mind illumined by the Spirit of God. It is the Spirit who breathes upon the Word, and brings the truth to light. You want also the obedient will. To understand the Word, you must be a doer of it, as well as a reader. “He that doeth the will,” said Jesus, “shall know of the teaching.” To know the Scriptures, you need, then, more equipment than the schools can supply-you need prayer, obedience and the Spirit’s light.
The Unobserved Truth.
“Ye know not the Scriptures,” said Jesus of these Sadducees. He illustrates and substantiates His charge by quoting them a passage out of the Pentateuch. He does not quote either Psalmist or Prophet. The Sadducees would not have acknowledged their authority. He goes to the Books they themselves acknowledged as authoritative Scripture. And out of their authoritative Scripture He quotes perhaps the most familiar passage of all-a passage as familiar to them as, let us say, “Our Father” is to us. The doctrine of immortality-which these Sadducees denied-was in their Scriptures all the time, if they had eyes to see it, and in the most familiar passages too. “But as touching the dead, that they are raised,” said Jesus; “have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” (Mar 12:26). Why, yes, they had read the passage scores, hundreds, thousands of times. But immortality and the resurrection are involved and implied in the passage; for “God,” said Jesus, “is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” They had read without understanding. “Ye do greatly err,” said Jesus.
Christ’s Argument for Immortality.
Now let us look for a moment at Christ’s argument for immortality as He states it here. The Sadducees made quite sure that there was no immortality in the Pentateuch. The doctrine was a later accretion, they said, and had no place in the revelation made to their great Lawgiver. Now it would have been passing strange if the Jews-God’s chosen and peculiar people-had been left without witness of the world beyond. For the instinct for immortality is everywhere. Tennyson’s lines,
“Thou madest man he knows not why,
He thinks he was not made to die,”
represent the universal belief. I say, it would have been passing strange, it would have been inexplicable, if the Jews had not shared in the expectation. But, as a matter of fact, Jesus finds the hope, almost the assertion, of immortality embedded in these Scriptures of the Law to which the Sadducees so confidently appealed. He recalls to their minds that familiar passage in which the story of the appearance of God to Moses in the Bush is told, and in the name God gives to Himself there our Lord finds the fact of immortality taken for granted.
-Founded on the Character of God.
What is the argument which Christ here propounds? It is the argument for immortality which is based upon the character of God. There is an argument for immortality which is based upon the nature of man. The very fact that man is a moral being, that he cherishes ambitions and hopes which in this life never get realised; the fact that there is so much incompleteness and waste in life; and that there are such serious inequalities that need to be rectified-all these things argue a life beyond the grave, unless you are to write down this world as a chaos, and life as a torture and a mockery. But there is a stronger argument for immortality than that which is based upon the nature of man, and that is the argument which grounds itself upon the character of God. It is that mightiest and most irrefragable of arguments that Christ advances here.
The Announcement of Moses.
-Not one of merely Passing Relationship.
Let us see what this argument amounts to. This was how God announced Himself to Moses at the Bush: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Now in that title which God then applied to Himself the doctrine of immortality is involved. For the God who revealed Himself to Moses in the Bush was a God able to enter into covenant relations with men; who admitted men into His friendship and fellowship. He became Abraham’s God, Isaac’s God, Jacob’s God. There was a covenant between these men and Him. They pledged and plighted themselves one to another. It was not a case simply of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob giving themselves to God; God entered into relations with them. But could such relations be merely temporary? Could death rob God of His friends? Did God pledge Himself to Abraham, saying, “I am thy God, and thine exceeding great reward,” if the grave were to be the end of it all? You perhaps remember how Omar Khayyam describes the relationship between men and God:
“We are no other than a moving row
Of magic Shadow-shapes that come and go
Round with the Sun-illumined Lantern held
In midnight by the Master of the Show;
But helpless pieces of the game He plays
Upon this chequer-board of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks and slays,
And one by one back in the closet lays.”
Of course, if men are no more to God than the pieces on the chess-board are to the player, if they are mere puppets with which He amuses Himself, then we are robbed of our argument for immortality, and we shall conclude, with the old Persian poet; that this life is all, and we had better make the best of it. But that is not the picture of God suggested by our Lord’s reference. That is not the God we know by our own personal experience. Men are not with Him mere pieces in the game. They are His friends. And the fact that God makes a friend of man, enters into personal relationships with him, is a pledge of immortality. It is impossible that death should rob God of His friend. The character of God is at stake. For to say otherwise, is to say that death, and not God, is Lord of the world.
A Sure Instinct of the Soul.
This truth you find expressed by Christ Himself. “Father,” He said, as He hung adying, “into Thy hands I commend My spirit.” You find it on the lips of the Apostles. “I am persuaded,” wrote St Paul, “that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:38-39). You find it on the lips of seers and poets.
“For though from out the bourne of time and space
My bark should wander far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face,
When I have crossed the bar.”
So wrote Tennyson. “God is love,” said Browning. “I build on that,” and so he “greets the unseen with a cheer.” All this is a sure instinct of the soul. If we can enter into loving fellowship with God, into personal relations with Him-and there are thousands and tens of thousands to testify that we can-then it is impossible that death should be the end. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ratification of that instinct. His coming back has told us that that instinct was true. Yonder, as here, we are in our Father’s hands. Nothing can separate us from Him. There are many things we do not know about the beyond, but we can say, with Whittier,
“I know not where His islands lift
Their fronded palms in air;
I simply know I cannot drift
Beyond His love and care.”
And that is enough. Yonder, as here, we shall be with Him. It is impossible that God’s friends should die.
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
6
Book of Moses is so called because God inspired him to write it. God declared himself to be the God of these patriarchs whom the Sadducees professed to love.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Verse 26
Exodus 3:6.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
In concluding that the Old Testament did not teach the resurrection, the Sadducees had overlooked an important passage in the Torah (Pentateuch). They regarded the Torah as particularly authoritative. Exo 3:6 taught continued human existence after death. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in Moses’ day. The Sadducees not only rejected the resurrection but also life after death. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of . . ., 18:1:4; idem, The Wars . . ., 2:8:14. See the Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner, 5:214-15.] The Jews had a more holistic view of man than most modern westerners do (cf. Gen 2:7). The Sadducees concluded that if the material part of man died, the whole person ceased to exist. Jesus, who held the same unified view of man, argued that if the immaterial part of man lived the whole person would live.
The major error of the Sadducees was their mistaken understanding of scriptural revelation. Jesus’ final rebuke (Mar 12:27), unique in the second Gospel, stressed that flaw.
"If the death of the patriarchs is the last word of their history, there has been a breach of the promises of God guaranteed by the [Abrahamic] covenant, and of which the formula ’the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob’ is the symbol. It is in fidelity to his covenant that God will resurrect the dead." [Note: Lane, p. 430.]